Council for Technology and The

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
953967873
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2011
Forms available
Form 990 2011
Location
Santa Monica, CA, USA
Phone
3103938420
Rating confidence
Limited
Sector
Engineering and Technology

Reported finances

Revenue
$912,439
Expenses
$74,759
Assets
$5,682,157
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2011. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2011. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

See schedule o

What it reported doing in 2011

Technology program - readying and delivering used computer equipment to deserving and underprivileged children and their families in the santa monica malibu school district and training these children and their families to prepare them to use this equipment.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 94% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

- The available evidence is not sufficient to produce an overall rating for this filing. This is not a warning sign.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: NotEnoughData
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Accountability: 29
  • Sustainability: 87
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: Limited
  • Program expense ratio: Limited
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 50%; rating input score 50; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 0 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Fail
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 91.8%; rating input score 99; 99th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 76.01; rating input score 99; 99th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 96; 96th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 66.6%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 124.3% per year; rating input score 100; 98th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 15.7% per year; rating input score 100; 79th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: Financial trends and filed revenue, expense, asset, and liability detail
  • Governance: 2 of 4 board members independent · 0 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $7K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $50K · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 13 of 13 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2009 to 2011
  • Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 8 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 50/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 1/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: California registration: this organization is recorded as not currently operating in California.